The mystery of the Peanuts’ parents

By Sally Carpenter

I grew up reading the “Peanuts” comic strip in the newspaper, but I never thought much about the characters until I recently watched “The Peanuts Movie” and something struck me.

Where are the parents?

In the nearly 50 years the strip ran, we never saw the faces of the characters’ parents or even knew their names or anything about them. Charlie Brown’s father was a barber (as was Charles Schulz’s dad) and Peppermint Pattie’s parents were divorced. Outside of that, the parents were a complete mystery.

Cartoonist Schulz made a deliberate decision in drawing the strip not to show adults. In an interview, he said he didn’t find adults interesting. (He also couldn’t draw them. In a rare early Sunday strip that showed the kids standing among a crowd of grown-ups, Charlie Brown appears to be only as tall as a woman’s knee!).

In the earliest strips, the parents at least seemed present. The kids frequently say, “your mother’s calling.” In Lucy’s earliest appearances in 1951, she’s a toddler calling for her dad from her crib—but she never cries out for her mother. Is dad the more comforting parent? Or was this the cartoonist’s personal experience?

The following year, Lucy is seen talking with her mother several times. That is, the reader sees mom’s dialogue balloon but not the person. Then mom vanished until decades later when Lucy’s second kid brother, Rerun, was born. Lucy is so upset that not getting a sister that she kicks Linus out of the house! Isn’t dad at home keeping order? Rerun is seen riding on the back of mom’ bicycle, but we still never catch a glimpse of the parent.

As the kids began attending school, teachers were involved in their lives, but these adults were likewise invisible and mute on paper. In the TV specials and movies, one hears a trumpet “wah-wah” sound whenever the grownups talked. Even on the screen we never see or hear an adult.

In one early strip, Charlie Brown calls the telephone operator and says, “I’m lonely. Can you read me a story?” The thought makes us laugh, but why doesn’t he ask a parent for this favor? Why does he turn to a stranger for nurturing?

This is no “Lord of the Flies” existence in which the kids fend for themselves. All of them live in nice (although not extravagant) and neat homes. They never go hungry and always have spending money for toys and candy. Their clothes are washed and mended, although the fashions never change. Someone organizes the school dances and drives the buses.

Yet the kids must handle their own problems. They have no parental help with homework. No adult tucks them into bed at night. Charlie Brown receives no comfort when he loses another baseball game. No one punishes Lucy when she slugs her kid brother. No adult provides emotional support.

What about Pigpen? Why don’t his parents make him bathe? Are they as dirty as he is? Is his house filthy and untidy? In today’s world, social services probably pull him out of his home and label his parents as inept caretakers.

If Schroeder lived in Los Angeles, his parents would drive him to a private piano teacher and enter him in prestigious music competitions. Lucy would be a precocious child actor with a controlling stage mom. Charlie Brown’s parents would haul him off to a licensed marriage-family therapist to deal with his neuroses.

But the kids seem fairly well adjusted. Yes, they bully, tease, insult, hit, snub and are mean to each other. That’s true of any child. Except for Charlie Brown’s bouts of depression, they seem optimist, happy and content. No gang members, Goth kids or punk rockers in this bunch. Rerun is a bit of a rebel, but nothing drastic.

Obviously the presence of adults would ruin the comic. Modern “helicopter parents” would constantly call and text to check up on their brood. Today’s adults would manage every aspect of their children’s lives. The parents would enroll their kids in every type of organized sport and club and not allow them the time or freedom to play, imagine, dream and, well, just be kids.

In Schulz’s world, the kids build up confidence and resiliency on their own. They fight their own battles. They stand up for what they think is right (The Great Pumpkin) and learn how to bounce back after failure. They negotiate, handle taunts and deal with problems—character traits that adults need as well.

One wonders what the Peanuts kids would be like had Schulz allowed them to grow up. Would they follow the same “absent parenting” style? Would they fade away as their own children began to talk?

The purpose of the comic is to entertain, not to present a manual on child rearing. But it’s interesting to note that as far as I know, “Peanuts” is the only comic with children and no adults. All the modern family comics I know of include both parents and kids. Nobody else has dared to recreate Schulz’s formula—yet.

Schulz would probably say I’m reading too much into his characters. But as fiction writers, we give our character more depth than a security blanket or a pet dog. Novelists need to create total personalities that keep the reader riveted for hundreds of pages. Building a family background into a character will enrich the story.

In my Sandy Fairfax series, Sandy’s parents only appear in two of the four books, but he often makes references to his overbearing father. In the first three books, Sandy makes snide cracks about his brother, Warren, whom we never met until book four. Even when we don’t see the family dynamics behind Sandy, they have formed the person he is.

And one wonders what kind of family setting made Lucy into a crab and Linus into a philosopher.

Intensify that interrogation scene

By Sally Carpenter

One of the hardest scenes to write in a mystery is the interrogation: The police officer, P.I., bounty hunter or amateur sleuth grills a suspect. Too often such scenes morph into a rhythm of Q-and-A, Q-and-A that lulls the reader to sleep and generates no conflict or character development. Interrogation scenes should be more than info dumps.

 I’m reading the book “Acting for Animators” by Ed Hooks (I bought the book years ago when I thought I’d be writing in TV animation). Hooks begins with basic acting theory that is useful for writers as well as visual artists. After all, acting is developing a character, and a mystery nothing more than how certain characters react to a crime. Without characters, our stories would be nothing more than boring police reports.

 Hooks says every scene in a play/book consists of a negotiation, of two or more characters striving to obtain a specific objective. Writing an interrogation scene with this in mind will perk up the story immensely.

 What is your character’s objective in an interrogation scene? The immediate goal for the protagonist, obviously, is to uncover clues or evidence to solve the case. But the character should have a larger overriding objective.

 The cop, of course, is doing her job. But maybe she had a long string of cold cases, and needs to break this one to prevent being transferred to traffic control. Or solving this case will result in a promotion. Or the mayor is breathing down her neck to wrap up this one quickly and quietly. Or she’s trying to do a good job to prove to Internal Affairs she’s not a dirty cop. All of these factors will affect every action the protagonist makes.

 The private eye needs this case to pay the overdue rent or her son’s college tuition or her mother’s operation. She must solve this crime because the local police department is too corrupt to deal with it.

The amateur sleuth is involved because the victim was a friend orerelative or the sleuth’s BFF was arrested for the murder.

 Or this particular case is too similar to the protagonist’s childhood trauma or inner demon that must dealt with. That will certainly affect the way the protagonist speaks to the suspects.

What of the suspect? That character’s objective in the scene is not to sit quietly and spit out exposition, but to get out of the hot seat as soon as possible.

A red herring will maintain her innocence or be terrified at the thought of an arrest or angry for even being considered a guilty party. This will affect how the answers are given.

 The killer may mislead, lie, deflect suspicion on another person, or act nonchalant, bored or even brag if the police have no solid evidence of his guilt.

 When people talk, they don’t sit motionless. They stand, pace, fidget, lean, cross arms or legs, nod, scratch, drink coffee, take notes, twist, etc. Characters in a story are also in motion, although they should move with a purpose and not flail about. Liars often avoid eye contact or cover their mouths. Writing in such action will break up long chunks of dialogue and add interest.

 Keep interrogation scenes short. A story is realistic, but it’s heightened realism. A real interrogation at police headquarters may take hours, but a reader won’t sit through pages of small talk.

 Make each word interesting. The suspect needs to say more than “I didn’t do it.”

 Each episode of “Columbo” is nothing more than a 90-minute interrogation scene! But the show works because each scene builds by revealing a new clue or pushing the killer emotionally further into exasperation.

 Columbo’s homey anecdotes about the wife or family are more than a humorous asides but are used as a means to disarm and distract the murderer, who thinks he can outwit this peculiar little man.

 The next time you watch “Columbo,” listen carefully to the thrust-and-parry game going on between the cop and the killer. How is the dialogue like a negotiation? Who has the upper hand in each scene? What “tricks” does Columbo use to wear down his opponent? And how can you use these techniques in writing an interrogation scene?

 

 

Cleaning out the cobwebs

By Sally Carpenter

One of my at-home projects for long holiday weekends is to sweep and mop the floors. This may not sound like much, but to me it’s an ordeal. It involves chasing the cats outside and then picking everything off the floor and stacking them on either the bed or sofa, leaving me no place to sit down until the floors dry.

Of course the day after the mopping, rain came and my cats trod over the clean floor with little wet paws. All the work for nothing!

But this attitude toward mopping doesn’t mean I’m a slob. I’m actually a neatnick. Every object has its place and must be put there. My writing space is not strewn with papers or books. Papers are filed away and books are in neat piles or on shelves. When I need something, I know exactly where to find it.

 The down side is that I get cranky if things are misplaced. I love Christmas decorations, but I’m not happy until every item is hung or put out and the packing bins are put away.

My desk at the office is the same way; clear save for some framed cat photos and mementos. Papers are in the hanging folders in the drawer. Even the items on my bulletin board are hung in a methodical fashion.

What has this to do with writing? Some say house cleaning is a procrastination to keep from writing, but for me, I can’t concentrate when my house—or life—is a mess. Sometimes I’ll even stop working just to take care of the stack of dirty dishes in the sink.

I need a clear space so I can think clearly. If I’m distracted by financial or personal issues, I can’t be creative.

Two years I cut down on my writing obligations because I was getting distracted. My mind was in a jumble, hopping from one thing to do to the next and as a result accomplishing little—certainly not as far as writing the next book.

 Also, my mysteries are crafted in an orderly manner. The structure is solid and builds to a logical conclusion. My tidy house reflects my state of mind.

If I’m facing writer’s block or can’t get motivated to write, it’s often a sign that I need to slow down, rest and get focused. I need to put aside the other “to dos,” stop playing computer solitaire (the writer’s bane), sit down with my pen and clipboard, and start writing. That’s how this post was written.

And hanging up the colorful Christmas decorations helps as well.

What do you do to clear out the mental cobwebs?

 

Time enough for a good story

By Sally Carpenter

Some time ago I re-watched the “Back to the Future” movie trilogy, of the intrepid Marty McFly journeys in the past and future to correct certain “mistakes” in the time line. The films are highly entertaining and great food for thought. What if time travel was possible? How would humans use—or misuse—that power?

Time travel has long been a subject for the science fiction genre but not so much for mysteries. After all, if the hero could go back in time and actually witness the crime, we’d have swift justice but a very short story.

Just what is “time,” anyway? Is it a man-made construct? Watches, clocks and calendars only measure time but do not create it. And time is not universal. With the various time zones, we are not all “in” the same minute.

Calendar use is not consistent. While most of the world uses the Gregorian calendar, the Orthodox Church still goes by the Julian calendar. In the Jewish calendar, this is year 5777. The traditional Chinese calendar has a leap month rather than a leap day.

If humans achieve space travel, how will they age in space, since time is different on planets with a longer or shorter orbit around the sun than Earth? Are human biological clocks so ingrained that the astronauts will continue to function on a 24-hour rhythm, or will they adapt to their new surroundings?

 Back here on Earth, what would be the practical uses of time travel? Humans could go back in time to correct certain “wrongs”: stop the assassination of Abraham Lincoln; prevent the birth of Adolph Hitler, save communities from natural disasters.

 But if John Wilkes Booth were stopped, would another man have killed Lincoln at a later time? If Hitler was never born, would a man even worse would rise to power, since at that time Germany needed a strong leader to pull the country out of an economic shambles.

 If the good guys had access to time travel, that means the bad guys could use it too. What if a Neo-Nazi prevented Oskar Shindler and many others from rescuing Jews during the Holocaust? What if a criminal made sure John Hinkley or Mehmet Ali Agca succeeded in their assassination attempts (President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, respectively)?

 Since time travel would be horribly expensive and not all “wrongs” can be righted, who would decide which historical events to change? The government? The millionaires who could afford the equipment? The poor? Victims of violence? Historians?

 What of the ramifications? If John F. Kennedy had not died in Dallas, how much history after that event would change?

Or would time travelers simply go to observe if certain events actually occurred, such as stories in the Bible? What kind of proof could they bring back? Would modern-day cameras and recording devices work in past times? How could one make selfies in first century without anyone noticing?

While this is gist for speculative fiction, it’s doubtful that time travel is possible. Events happen and disappear. While past events are recorded in memories and photographs, one can’t make history happen again. One can’t return 1500 France because 2016 France is occupying that ground. The World Wars are not still being replayed in an alternative universe; at least I hope not.

Attempts to recapture the past usually fail. Promoters tried to recreate the original Woodstock feel-good festival with Woodstock ’94 and ‘99. The first attempt suffered from security breakdown, and ’99 was marred by high vendor prices, violence, rape and fires. The love and goodwill of the original concert got lost in translation.

What your thoughts on time travel? Should humans attempt to change the past or let bygones be bygones? Are there events or choices in your life you’d like to go back and change?

 

 

 

 

Your neighbor, the killer

By Sally Carpenter

 The central questions in any mystery are “who is the killer/villain?” and “what is the motive?” The answer may surprise you.

 I’ve just started reading the book “Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty” by Roy Baumeister. He’s a college professor who examines the question not from a theological or moral standpoint, but the perspective of psychology and sociology.

In the first couple of chapters I’ve found some interesting ideas. First, all persons have the capacity to do evil, only most choose not to do through self-control.

I’ladd my own theory that this self-control is often enforced through religious teaching (“thou shalt not kill”) and the law (“life in prison without parole”).

 Nearly everyone has felt intense anger at some point most manage not to give in to their feelings. Road rage begins with two people letting their self-control slip so they can act on their fury until the incident ends in injury or death.

 Baumeister says most people know their killer and few murders are committed by strangers.

 He also says most murderers—and I would add sex criminals—are ordinary folk, both in their lifestyle and appearance. They don’t have hideous faces, evil grins, wicked laughs or gang banger attitudes to indicate their evil intensions.

 Such persons are often charismatic, charming and even likeable, which is how they lure in their victims. Who would suspect such a nice person to be capable of a monstrous deed?

 Criminals didn’t see themselves as doing wrong. The killer says the person deserved it. A rapist may blame alcohol or drugs, not his free own choice. The rapist will say the victim “enjoyed it” or “I couldn’t help it,” a complete denial of reality.

Victims tend to preserve the memory of the crime (which is why some can engage in revenge killings year later) whereas criminals will downplay the incident or push it out of mind: “let bygones be bygones.” To them, the act is over and done with; let’s move on.

A cozy mystery fits with these observations. The murderer is always local and known, sometime a long-time pillar of the community. No serial criminals or strangers here.

 The identification of the killer is a surprise because it’s the person who seems least likely to do it, while the red herrings have more obvious motives.

 The murderer sees the killing as justified: it had to be done.

 “Columbo” was such a clever show because the killers were smart, attractive, suave, friendly and often well respected in their professional. On the surface they led orderly lives without even a parking ticket on their record.

 Yet they found themselves trapped in a situation that they thought would harm them and they saw no other recourse than to eliminate the problem.

 Columbo’s skill was that he understood human nature. Beneath the veneer of the model citizen beat a killer’s heart.

It’ll be interesting to read more of the book and see how the author’s observations can be applied to writing mysteries.